Phase I trial of single-photon emission computed tomography-guided liver-directed radiotherapy for patients with low functional liver volume.

BACKGROUND: Traditional constraints specify that 700 cc of liver should be spared a hepatotoxic dose when delivering liver-directed radiotherapy to reduce the risk of inducing liver failure. We investigated the role of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) to identify and preferentially avoid functional liver during liver-directed radiation treatment planning in patients with preserved liver function but limited functional liver volume after receiving prior hepatotoxic chemotherapy or surgical resection. METHODS: This phase I trial with a 3 + 3 design evaluated the safety of liver-directed radiotherapy using escalating functional liver radiation dose constraints in patients with liver metastases. Dose-limiting toxicities were assessed 6-8 weeks and 6 months after completing radiotherapy. RESULTS: All 12 patients had colorectal liver metastases and received prior hepatotoxic chemotherapy; 8 patients underwent prior liver resection. Median computed tomography anatomical nontumor liver volume was 1584 cc (range = 764-2699 cc). Median SPECT functional liver volume was 1117 cc (range = 570-1928 cc). Median nontarget computed tomography and SPECT liver volumes below the volumetric dose constraint were 997 cc (range = 544-1576 cc) and 684 cc (range = 429-1244 cc), respectively. The prescription dose was 67.5-75 Gy in 15 fractions or 75-100 Gy in 25 fractions. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed during follow-up. One-year in-field control was 57%. One-year overall survival was 73%. CONCLUSION: Liver-directed radiotherapy can be safely delivered to high doses when incorporating functional SPECT into the radiation treatment planning process, which may enable sparing of lower volumes of liver than traditionally accepted in patients with preserved liver function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02626312.

Novel Clinical Tool to Estimate Risk of False-Negative KRAS Mutations in Circulating Tumor DNA Testing.

PURPOSE: In metastatic colorectal cancer, the detection of RAS mutations by circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a valid and noninvasive alternative approach to determining RAS status. However, some RAS mutations may be missed, that is, false negatives can occur, possibly compromising important treatment decisions. We propose a statistical model to assess the probability of false negatives when performing ctDNA testing for RAS. METHODS: Cohorts of 172 subjects with tissue and multipanel ctDNA testing from MD Anderson Cancer Center and 146 subjects from Massachusetts General Hospital were collected. We developed a Bayesian model that uses observed frequencies of reference mutations (the maximum of APC and TP53) to provide information about the probability of KRAS false negatives. The model was alternatively trained on one cohort and tested on the other. All data were collected on Guardant assays. RESULTS: The model suggests that negative KRAS findings are believable when the maximum of APC and TP53 frequencies is at least 8% (corresponding posterior probability of false negative <5%). Validation studies demonstrated the ability of our tool to discriminate between false-negative and true-negative subjects. Simulations further confirmed the utility of the proposed approach. CONCLUSION: We suggest clinicians use the tool to more precisely quantify KRAS false-negative ctDNA results when at least one of the reference mutations (APC, TP53) is observed; usage may be especially important for subjects with a maximum reference frequency of <8%. Extension of the methodology to predict false negatives of other genes is possible. Additional reference genes can also be considered. Use of personal training data sets is supported. An open-source R Shiny application is available for public use.

Systemic Therapy for Tumor Control in Metastatic Well-Differentiated Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for systemic therapy for well-differentiated grade 1 (G1) to grade 3 (G3) metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. RECOMMENDATIONS: Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are recommended as first-line systemic therapy for most patients with G1-grade 2 (G2) metastatic well-differentiated GI-NETs. Observation is an option for patients with low-volume or slow-growing disease without symptoms. After progression on SSAs, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is recommended as systematic therapy for patients with somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positive tumors. Everolimus is an alternative second-line therapy, particularly in nonfunctioning NETs and patients with SSTR-negative tumors. SSAs are standard first-line therapy for SSTR-positive pancreatic (pan)NETs. Rarely, observation may be appropriate for asymptomatic patients until progression. Second-line systemic options for panNETs include PRRT (for SSTR-positive tumors), cytotoxic chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. For SSTR-negative tumors, first-line therapy options are chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. There are insufficient data to recommend particular sequencing of therapies. Patients with G1-G2 high-volume disease, relatively high Ki-67 index, and/or symptoms related to tumor growth may benefit from early cytotoxic chemotherapy. For G3 GEP-NETs, systemic options for G1-G2 may be considered, although cytotoxic chemotherapy is likely the most effective option for patients with tumor-related symptoms, and SSAs are relatively ineffective. Qualifying statements are provided to assist with treatment choice. Multidisciplinary team management is recommended, along with shared decision making with patients, incorporating their values and preferences, potential benefits and harms, and other characteristics and circumstances, such as comorbidities, performance status, geographic location, and access to care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.